Measurement of axial length in an office setting versus under general anesthesia in infants and toddlers: A comparative study

Michael Kinori, Ido Didi Fabian, Abraham Spierer, Tamara Wygnanski-Jaffe, Shira L. Robbins, David B. Granet, Itay Ben Zion

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To examine whether axial length measurement in awake infants and toddlers is feasible, and whether there is a difference in axial length measurement between an office setting and under general anesthesia. Methods: This prospective comparative case study was conducted at the Goldschleger Eye Institute, Sheba Medical Center, Israel. Using the same instruments, axial length measurements were obtained using a standard applanation technique twice: once in an office setting when the infant/toddler was awake and once under general anesthesia in the operating room. A paired t test was used to test for differences between measurements. Results: Thirty-three eyes of 19 participants younger than 28 months were examined; 24 (73%) eyes had cataracts and the remainder had clear lenses. One child was excluded from the study due to lack of cooperation during axial length measurement in the office setting and another due to the lengthy gap between measurements. Of the remaining 31 children, the average age was 9 months. Average axial length measurements were shorter by 0.12 mm in the office setting than under general anesthesia (P = .14). No adverse effects were observed after axial length measurements in the office setting. Conclusions: Axial length measurement in an office setting is generally reasonable to obtain. The results showed no significant difference in the axial length measured in the two settings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)226-230
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus
Volume52
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Measurement of axial length in an office setting versus under general anesthesia in infants and toddlers: A comparative study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this